I hope you’re well. I
wanted to see if you’d be interested in speaking (by phone) with Michael Moore
on Tuesday, March 16 to discuss the news of the day and his latest film,
Capitalism: A Love Story. The DVD
hit stores on Tuesday, March 9th and features more than 80 minutes of
featurettes, extended and deleted scenes, all written and directed by Michael
Moore.

Michael is available
on Tuesday, March 16, 1:00pm – 2:30pm ET.

I look forward to
hearing from you on this.

Best,

Dave

David
Falkenstein

In your movie, which is patently dishonest, you describe America has
having been founded on genocide and having gotten rich on the backs of slaves.

Ayn Rand:
Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on
earth. The
evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between West and East Berlin,
North Korea and South Korea
is the
latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet
those
who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are
loudest in
denouncing capitalism. Man’s well-being is not their goal.

Capitalism cannot work with slave labor. It was the agrarian,
feudal
South that
maintained slavery. It was the industrial, capitalistic North that wiped
it
out—as capitalism wiped out slavery and serfdom in the whole civilized
world
of the nineteenth century.

What greater virtue can one ascribe to a social system than the
fact
that it
leaves no possibility for any man to serve his own interests by
enslaving other
men? What nobler system could be desired by anyone whose goal is man’s
well-being?

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical
force
from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by
means of
force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate
the use of
physical force against others. The only function of the government, in
such a
society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of
protecting
him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right
of
self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against
those who
initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the
retaliatory
use of force under objective control.

The flood of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright
falsehood about capitalism is such that the young people of today have
no idea
(and virtually no way of discovering any idea) of its actual nature.
While
archeologists are rummaging through the ruins of millennia for scraps of
pottery and bits of bones, from which to reconstruct some information
about
prehistorical existence—the events of less than a century ago are hidden
under
a mound more impenetrable than the geological debris of winds, floods,
and
earthquakes: a mound of silence.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Michael Moore makes money
off oil
and war? Why would he bother lying about owning stock? Is Peter
Schweizer the
only person who bothered checking?

Peter Schweizer:Michael Moore is constantly
trying to
prove his and the Left's moral superiority, so he says things about
himself that
are patently not true. He's pathological about it. How else to explain
that he's
loudly proclaimed no less than three times that he doesn't invest in the
stock
market because it's morally wrong while quietly picking up shares in a
whole
host of companies. A portfolio that includes Halliburton, Boeing, and
HMOs
doesn't fit the bill so he lies about it. I think he assumed that no one
would
poke around and investigate. When it comes to the MSM he was correct in
making
that assumption. He never responded to my questions. I'm dying to know
how he
explains away this one.

Moore professes to hate capitalism ("the last evil empire" but practices
it in
spades. Moore condemns people for their racism and claims to support and
practice affirmative action, but has a lousy record of hiring
minorities. He
outsources post-production film work to Canada so he can pay non-union
wages. I
could go on and on. I would ask his fans: is this really a sincere
person?

In his books Michael Moore goes on and on about the fact that
Americans are
racist because they live in white neighborhoods. It's an example of
latent
segregationist attitudes in his mind. When I checked the demographics on
Michael
Moore's residence I burst out laughing. Michael Moore lives in a town of
2,500
in Michigan. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there is not a single
black
person in the entire town.

“Common Good”

The tribal notion of “the common good” has served as the moral
justification of
most social systems—and of all tyrannies—in history. The degree of a
society’s enslavement or freedom corresponded to the degree to which
that
tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.

“The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and
undefinable
concept: there is no such entity as “the tribe” or “the public”; the
tribe (or
the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can
be good
for the tribe as such; “good” and “value” pertain only to a
living
organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate
of
relationships.

“The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally,
in which
case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all
the individual
men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral
criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of
individual men
and how does one determine it?

It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is
generally used.
It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical
character which
serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the
good is
not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for
those who
attempt to embody it.

When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart
from and
superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good
of some
men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others
consigned to
the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases,
that
“the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against
the minority or
the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit:
even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility
of
justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a
pretense
and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights
means
the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the
power
of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and
proceeds to
rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing
the
same means.

If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept
as proper
only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable.
But if one
begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding
individual good
as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any
particular
case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a
country
professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of
a
minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in
subhuman
misery for over two generations.

Only on the basis of individual rights can any good—private or
public—be
defined and achieved. Only when each man is free to exist for his own
sake—neither sacrificing others to himself nor being sacrificed to
others—only then is every man free to work for the greatest good he can
achieve for himself by his own choice and by his own effort. And the sum
total
of such individual efforts is the only kind of general, social good
possible.

I hope you’re well. I
wanted to see if you’d be interested in speaking (by phone) with Michael Moore
on Tuesday, March 16 to discuss the news of the day and his latest film,
Capitalism: A Love Story. The DVD
hit stores on Tuesday, March 9th and features more than 80 minutes of
featurettes, extended and deleted scenes, all written and directed by Michael
Moore.

Michael is available
on Tuesday, March 16, 1:00pm – 2:30pm ET.

I look forward to
hearing from you on this.

Best,

Dave

David
Falkenstein

In your movie, which is patently dishonest, you describe America has
having been founded on genocide and having gotten rich on the backs of slaves.

Ayn Rand:
Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on
earth. The
evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between West and East Berlin,
North Korea and South Korea
is the
latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet
those
who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are
loudest in
denouncing capitalism. Man’s well-being is not their goal.

Capitalism cannot work with slave labor. It was the agrarian,
feudal
South that
maintained slavery. It was the industrial, capitalistic North that wiped
it
out—as capitalism wiped out slavery and serfdom in the whole civilized
world
of the nineteenth century.

What greater virtue can one ascribe to a social system than the
fact
that it
leaves no possibility for any man to serve his own interests by
enslaving other
men? What nobler system could be desired by anyone whose goal is man’s
well-being?

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical
force
from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by
means of
force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate
the use of
physical force against others. The only function of the government, in
such a
society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of
protecting
him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right
of
self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against
those who
initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the
retaliatory
use of force under objective control.

The flood of misinformation, misrepresentation, distortion, and outright
falsehood about capitalism is such that the young people of today have
no idea
(and virtually no way of discovering any idea) of its actual nature.
While
archeologists are rummaging through the ruins of millennia for scraps of
pottery and bits of bones, from which to reconstruct some information
about
prehistorical existence—the events of less than a century ago are hidden
under
a mound more impenetrable than the geological debris of winds, floods,
and
earthquakes: a mound of silence.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: Michael Moore makes money
off oil
and war? Why would he bother lying about owning stock? Is Peter
Schweizer the
only person who bothered checking?

Peter Schweizer:Michael Moore is constantly
trying to
prove his and the Left's moral superiority, so he says things about
himself that
are patently not true. He's pathological about it. How else to explain
that he's
loudly proclaimed no less than three times that he doesn't invest in the
stock
market because it's morally wrong while quietly picking up shares in a
whole
host of companies. A portfolio that includes Halliburton, Boeing, and
HMOs
doesn't fit the bill so he lies about it. I think he assumed that no one
would
poke around and investigate. When it comes to the MSM he was correct in
making
that assumption. He never responded to my questions. I'm dying to know
how he
explains away this one.

Moore professes to hate capitalism ("the last evil empire" but practices
it in
spades. Moore condemns people for their racism and claims to support and
practice affirmative action, but has a lousy record of hiring
minorities. He
outsources post-production film work to Canada so he can pay non-union
wages. I
could go on and on. I would ask his fans: is this really a sincere
person?

In his books Michael Moore goes on and on about the fact that
Americans are
racist because they live in white neighborhoods. It's an example of
latent
segregationist attitudes in his mind. When I checked the demographics on
Michael
Moore's residence I burst out laughing. Michael Moore lives in a town of
2,500
in Michigan. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there is not a single
black
person in the entire town.

“Common Good”

The tribal notion of “the common good” has served as the moral
justification of
most social systems—and of all tyrannies—in history. The degree of a
society’s enslavement or freedom corresponded to the degree to which
that
tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.

“The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and
undefinable
concept: there is no such entity as “the tribe” or “the public”; the
tribe (or
the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can
be good
for the tribe as such; “good” and “value” pertain only to a
living
organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate
of
relationships.

“The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally,
in which
case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all
the individual
men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral
criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of
individual men
and how does one determine it?

It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is
generally used.
It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical
character which
serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the
good is
not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for
those who
attempt to embody it.

When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart
from and
superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good
of some
men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others
consigned to
the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases,
that
“the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against
the minority or
the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit:
even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility
of
justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a
pretense
and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights
means
the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the
power
of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and
proceeds to
rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing
the
same means.

If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept
as proper
only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable.
But if one
begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding
individual good
as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any
particular
case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a
country
professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of
a
minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in
subhuman
misery for over two generations.

Only on the basis of individual rights can any good—private or
public—be
defined and achieved. Only when each man is free to exist for his own
sake—neither sacrificing others to himself nor being sacrificed to
others—only then is every man free to work for the greatest good he can
achieve for himself by his own choice and by his own effort. And the sum
total
of such individual efforts is the only kind of general, social good
possible.